Obamacare

[Harlowe]

Not in the exchange. Due to the rule that insurers have to spend at least 80 percent on actual health care, customers and employers (that contributed) get rebates from the difference if they don't.

[Partha]

Not in the exchange. Due to the rule that insurers have to spend at least 80 percent on actual health care, customers and employers (that contributed) get rebates from the difference if they don't.

Which, when you think about it, blows holes in the argument that costs will skyrocket as people are added into the system that probably need more health care immediately. Some people will certainly use more health care as it becomes available (I'm one of them), but plenty of others won't have any glaring need for it but were still uninsurable under the old system because of whatever excuse the insurance companies made. (Like me)

[Embar Angylwrath]

?????

The shuck and jive by the Admin makes it even more likely health costs will raise. They changed the equation. No penalty to employers for a year, little penalty to people that don't want insurance, must carry provisions, and no lifetime caps imposed on the insurance industry, plus caps on profits.

The cost needle moved into the red because of that. Some older insureds won't see much of a hit, but the younger ones sure will.

[Harlowe]

More likely based on what forecasts? We've had the first decline in costs in 40 years.

[Partha]

Based upon Embar's Anal Costs Analysis.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Costs dropping? Not here in California, which has a pretty hardcore exchange set up. I've already posted about the misleading information coming from the state of California on costs. They were comparing the silver plan to plans that would be mapped to gold and platinum plans. So the cost here only "drops" if you take a less robust plan.

Other news - UPS is dropping 15,000 spouses from its healthcare roles, saving them over $60 million per year. They cite Obamacare as the reason, since now, those spouses can get insurance somewhere else (read: exchanges or the spouses' employer).

Forever 21 (clothing chain) announced it is eliminating full time positions to avoid having to get insurance for its employees. I think you'll see a lot more of this in companies like retail and service, that operate on thin margins. And once one company does it, competing companies will likely follow to remain competitive. So you'll see already lower paying jobs get a 25% pay cut from working 29.5 hours/week instead of 40, and they have to get insurance or get slapped with the tax.

[Ddrak]

Can't you chalk that stuff up to "asshole companies are assholes"?

Dd

[Harlowe]

Can't you chalk that stuff up to "asshole companies are assholes"?

Dd

My money is on this one. Companies deciding to use a situation (and convenient scapegoat) to increase their bottom line, has zero to do with whether ACA lowers healthcare costs or not.

[Kulaf]

People need to start boycotting.

[Partha]

Can't you chalk that stuff up to "asshole companies are assholes"?

Dd

My money is on this one. Companies deciding to use a situation (and convenient scapegoat) to increase their bottom line, has zero to do with whether ACA lowers healthcare costs or not.

This is why quality employers like Walmart and McD's already keep people part time, because even paying for that POS Starbridge is beyond the pale. To blame it on ACA is just diversionary.

[Harlowe]

Then you have awesome companies to work for like Costco, Wegmans, Trader Joe's etc, that see their profits going up and believe in paying a living wage and providing healthcare.

Walmart not only cause a net loss in jobs when it comes to an area, it costs taxpayers because 80% of their workers (some crazy high number) need food stamps to survive.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Can't you chalk that stuff up to "asshole companies are assholes"?

Dd

My money is on this one. Companies deciding to use a situation (and convenient scapegoat) to increase their bottom line, has zero to do with whether ACA lowers healthcare costs or not.

Trader Joe's drops part-timers from medical coverage. Sends them to the exchanges. Trader Joe's isn't known for their assholery. Believe me now?

You will see more and more companies doing this, and the more that do it, the more the practice will be accepted. Especially in margin-thin business models like retail, food services, and, it seems, grocery chains.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 ... 02341.html

[Harlowe]

They aren't just dropping them, they are giving them $500 to go towards coverage for people working part-time (at least 18 hours a week). They aren't dropping it from their 30+ hour a week employees and they pay a living wage.

[Embar Angylwrath]

They are dropping them from company sponsored coverage, Harlowe.

What do you think $500 will buy on the exchanges? A full year's policy? No way. That amount "might" buy you 2-3 months on the lowest plan.

More to the point, is Trader Joe's the asshole company being assholes?

[Ddrak]

They are dropping them from company sponsored coverage, Harlowe.

What do you think $500 will buy on the exchanges? A full year's policy? No way. That amount "might" buy you 2-3 months on the lowest plan.

More to the point, is Trader Joe's the asshole company being assholes?

It's not $500. It's $500 + $35/paycheck = $1410. Put that into the subsidy calc provided and you are easily covered on the lowest plan, in fact you're around $800/yr better off.

Remind me again what your point was?

Dd

[Arathena]

Remind me again what your point was?

Dd

It's bad-scary when a Democrat implements a Republican proposal?

Replace the ACA with HR676.

[Harlowe]

They weren't just dropped or had their hours lowered in order to get dropped. It's no different than a company changing from one type of insurance reimbursement benefit to another. They are still getting insurance subsidized - which is what most companies technically do, since they do not typically pay an employee's full premium.

Ddrak gave the numbers.

[Partha]

This is why companies not so secretly love Obamacare - it takes a cost off their balance sheet, and since everyone is in on it, their total cost per employee drops quite a bit. This is why companies overseas don't have a problem paying higher minimum wages and generally have much less stressful working situations. The money they save on having to provide health care can go instead towards higher wages.

[Kulaf]

Wait a minute......did Partha just say that companies that make more will pay higher wages?

[Arathena]

Wait a minute......did Partha just say that companies that make more will pay higher wages?

Paying the CEO more counts as higher wages, which is what we can expect here. But he was referring to the higher minimum wage in Europe/Australia being a lower wage burden vs the shitty wage + overpriced benefit package compensation mistake we have.